Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In press
Exceptionality Education International
2012,
ISSN 1918-5227 55
Effects of the Learning Opportunities Task Force (LOTF) Programs on Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities
Allyson G. Harrison Queen’s University
Shaljan Areepattamannil National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University
John Freeman Queen’s University
Abstract
This study examined the effects of participation in the Learning Opportunities
Task Force (LOTF) programs on postsecondary students with learning dis-
abilities (LDs). Data regarding 969 students from 6 colleges and 4
universities in Ontario were evaluated to investigate rates of academic success
and increased self-awareness. Participants had a significantly lower rate of
failure or drop out compared with the national average. Comparison of pre-
and post-participation data from 450 of these students demonstrated improved
understanding of their own LD, ability to explain their disability to others, and
ability to self-advocate following participation in the LOTF programs. Over-
all, the majority of participants reported that participation in the LOTF
program contributed significantly to their academic success and would par-
ticipate again in such a program. Intensive learning supports during the first
year of postsecondary studies like those provided by LOTF may increase re-
tention rates and improve key skills for those with LD.
Learning disabilities (LDs) are the most common type of disability identified in children,
adults, and postsecondary students in Canada with 3.2% of children ages 5–14 and 2.5% of
adults identified as having a learning disability (LD; Statistics Canada, 2007). The number of
actual persons with LD may be even greater when one considers those individuals who have
not been assessed and/or who have chosen not to disclose their disability through official
channels (Rath & Royer, 2002; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).
As a result of early identification procedures, coupled with improved technological and
educational supports in the younger grades, many students with LDs are encountering greater
success at the elementary and secondary school levels and are entering postsecondary institu-
tions in increasing numbers (College Committee on Disability Issues, 2004; Heiman &
Precel, 2003; Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001; Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). Indeed, LDs are the
most frequently accommodated disabilities at the postsecondary level, affecting from a third
Harrison et al.
56 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
to one half of all students receiving disability support services at Canadian postsecondary in-
stitutions (Harrison & Wolforth, 2006).
Despite the strides made with postsecondary access in recent years, students with LD
still struggle when transitioning to and successfully completing postsecondary education
(Black, Smith, Chang, Harding, & Stodden, 2002; Gregg, 2007; Murray, Goldstein, Nourse,
& Edgar, 2000; Nichols, Harrison, McCloskey, & Weintraub, 2002; Wagner et al., 2005). In
fact, the majority of students with LD fail to complete the education necessary for transition
in the first place, as those with LD drop out of high school two to three times as often as do
their non-disabled peers (Young & Browning, 2005). Further, those with LD enroll in post-
secondary programs at one-tenth the rate of the general population (Stodden, Jones, & Chang,
2002; Wagner et al., 2005; Young & Browning, 2005).
Even when accepted into college or university, such students continue to face a number
of challenges. While the transition from secondary school to postsecondary life is difficult for
all students (e.g., Howard, Schiraldi, Pineda, & Campanella, 2006; Martin, Cayanus, Weber,
& Goodboy, 2006), it may have an even more profound effect on students with LDs (see
Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002; Price, Gerber, & Shessel, 2002; Skinner & Lind-
strom, 2003; Smith & Young, 2004; Ward, Mallet, Heslop, & Simons, 2003) in that students
with LD often move from an environment where they were carefully guided to a setting in
which they are expected to achieve on their own (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992;
Smith & Young, 2004). Thus, although Disability Services Offices in Ontario currently pro-
vide accommodations and learning supports for students with LD who register with their
offices, such students must still learn ways to cope with decreased structure, increased auton-
omy, and develop the ability to self-advocate and choose courses appropriately to succeed at
the postsecondary level. The postsecondary graduation rate of students with LD is as low as
3.6%, compared to their non-disabled peers at 62.1% (Murray et al., 2000), and students with
LD consistently report lower grades, lower test scores, and lower perceptions of their own
academic and intellectual abilities (Heiman & Precel, 2003). These statistics suggest that, in
addition to the above issues experienced by all students entering postsecondary education,
impairments associated with LD create unique issues that may interfere with the ability of
these students to function successfully in the postsecondary environment.
Barriers to Success in Postsecondary Education
Over and above coping with the effects of a disability in general, studies of college stu-
dents with LD reveal that they have greater difficulty handling academic demands, adjusting
to change, dealing with criticism (Mellard & Hazel, 1992), and adjusting to university life
(Saracoglu, Minden, & Wilchesky, 1989). Ellis (1993) argued that, in addition to mastering
course content information, students must also be self-regulated learners; they need to be
“strategic problem solvers who proactively analyze tasks, reflect on their prior experiences
and knowledge, set goals, select and employ appropriate strategies for solving the problems,
and monitor the effectiveness of their problem-solving behaviors” (p. 359). However, many
students with LD lack effective task-approach strategies (Butler, 1995). Typically, they do
not understand their disability, lack the skills to be self-regulated learners, and have not had
learning strategies instruction to allow skill generalization across contexts (Kovach &
Wilgosh, 1999; Nichols et al., 2002). In addition, students with LD continue to have diffi-
culty in academic skills that were not mastered during the school-age years (Gerber, 1998;
Smith and Young, 2004); they are often overwhelmed, disorganized, and frustrated in learn-
ing situations (Smith, English, & Vasek, 2002; Vaidya, 1999).
While adequate academic and study skills preparation contribute to the success or fail-
ure of those with LD at the postsecondary level (Brinkerhoff, 1994; Goldberg, Higgins,
Raskind, & Herman, 2003; Gregg, 2007; Mangrum & Strichart, 1988), attention has increas-
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 57
ingly been focused on two additional factors that seem to affect postsecondary outcomes of
students with LD: self-advocacy and self-understanding with respect to their LDs. Self-
advocacy is critical for the success of students with LDs (Troiano, Liefeld, & Trachtenberg,
2010). This advocacy has often resulted in parents meeting the needs of their children, but
has not fostered the children’s independence (Bryan & Burnstein, 2004; Sitlington & Payne,
2004; Smith et al., 2002), with students with LD usually entering college without knowing
how to appropriately advocate for themselves (Harrison, Larochette, & Nichols, 2007; Hitch-
ings et al., 2010; Nichols et al., 2002; Stodden & Jones, 2002).
Adults with LD also must develop a clear and accurate understanding of their own
needs, strengths, and limitations, and an ability to efficiently and accurately explain their dis-
order and how it affects their academic, social, and interpersonal functioning (Nichols et al.,
2002; Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999). Without these skills, students with LD
may not select courses best suited to their strengths and weaknesses (Harrison et al., 2007;
Mangrum & Strichart, 1988), may not understand how their own disability impacts subse-
quent learning experiences (Brinckerhoff, 1996; DaDeppo, 2009; Harrison et al., 2007;
Mangrum & Strichart, 1988), and may not be prepared to explain their learning needs to pro-
fessors (Hitchings et al., 2001; Lock & Layton, 2001; Nichols et al., 2002). However, despite
the importance of self-awareness for postsecondary success, students with LD may not de-
velop an understanding of their disability and its impact upon their learning prior to attending
college or university (Nichols et al., 2002; Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, & Mason, 2004).
Development of Programs to Improve Postsecondary Success of Those with LD
Because of the increasing number of students with LDs in postsecondary institutions
and concerns regarding the ability of these students to successfully complete this level of
education, the Ontario government established the Learning Opportunities Task Force
(LOTF) in 1997 to address concerns regarding the ability of students with LD to transition to
and succeed in the postsecondary environment, and to collect and analyze data regarding the
most effective ways in which postsecondary institutions could accommodate and assist all
students with LD (Nichols et al., 2002).
To actualize these goals, the LOTF commissioned 13 pilot projects at postsecondary in-
stitutions across Ontario. Relying on research that suggested strategies likely to improve
educational success of those with LD, the LOTF pilot projects implemented intensive learn-
ing skills, education, and self-advocacy interventions for students enrolled in such projects.
Although the specific delivery methods and time devoted to each project component differed
at each institution, all LOTF programs required mandatory participation (at least in the first
year of the program) in the following activities or components: (a) having students participate
in an up-to-date psychoeducational evaluation; (b) helping students evaluate the appropriate-
ness of their chosen postsecondary program and provide academic advising where
appropriate; (c) teaching students about their disability and appropriate compensatory strate-
gies; (d) teaching students to self-advocate; (e) teaching students about their educational
rights and responsibilities; (f) encouraging students to self-identify and seek appropriate as-
sistance and to become more independent after first year; (g) teaching students how to
organize for living and learning; (h) facilitating a support network; and (i) providing one-to-
one learning strategies and assistive technology coaching and support. While other aspects of
each pilot project may have differed between sites, these nine components were included in
all of the LOTF pilot projects. Students were given the option to continue participating in
components of relevance after their first year in the program, but did not have to participate
in every component after the initial year.
Harrison et al.
58 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of participation in these in-
tensive and LD-specific postsecondary education and support programs delivered to students
through at least their first year of postsecondary education. This paper reports on the subjec-
tive opinions endorsed by students when they began this program as opposed to when they
completed or left the program. Objective data regarding overall academic performance were
also obtained from participants or pilot project staff.
Method
Participants
Students with LD at the pilot institution were aware that a major component of the
LOTF project involved research and evaluation. Students were informed that their willing-
ness to complete any surveys for the LOTF was voluntary and would not affect the services
or supports they received while in the program.
Of the 1242 students who participated in all of the pilot projects, 1153 agreed to com-
plete the initial intake questionnaire (see Harrison et al., 2007 for information about the initial
sample). However, 44 of these were students who participated in a summer transition pro-
gram only. Their data were not included in this analysis as they did not necessarily go on to
complete their postsecondary studies in one of the LOTF projects. An additional 57 students
who completed the intake questionnaire were in French-language LOTF projects. Due to in-
adequate means of assessing for LD in French at that time (Nichols et al., 2002), these pilot
projects were discontinued after just over one year of the project and no exit questionnaires
were completed. Finally, 52 students completed the intake questionnaire but were subse-
quently found to not meet the diagnostic criteria for LD; as such, they did not complete exit
questionnaires. Overall, there were 969 students (47.2% women and 52.3% men) with con-
firmed LDs enrolled in the LOTF postsecondary programs who completed the initial intake
questionnaire and were eligible to complete an exit questionnaire. Students were asked to
complete an exit questionnaire when they graduated, left their postsecondary institution or
withdrew from the LOTF program, or when the pilot program funding ended.
Of those initial 969, 450 (47% response rate) from three universities (n = 85) and six
colleges (n = 365) in Ontario completed both the intake and final questionnaires as part of the
LOTF program. No significant difference was found in the survey attrition rate between col-
lege and university respondents or by sex of respondent.
Additional information concerning 395 students who did not complete the exit ques-
tionnaire was obtained via a proxy questionnaire completed by Disability Services staff at the
pilot institutions. While not able to comment on specific skills, these proxy questionnaires
served to identify graduation status and provide other demographic information of relevance
for students who had completed the intake questionnaire. Survey questions pertaining to simi-
lar content in both surveys was also evaluated in the present analysis. Cases with missing data
were excluded list-wise. The mean age of participants was 24.0 years (participant-completed
and proxy).
Procedure
The LOTF was a 5-year pilot project that ran from 1998 to 2003, with funded programs
aimed at improving the postsecondary experiences of students with LD. Ten postsecondary
English-language institutions (four universities and six colleges) were chosen to develop and
implement these pilot projects. One of these was a summer only orientation program for in-
coming students. All students applying to participate in the LOTF program at the pilot
locations had to meet the LOTF’s rigorous diagnostic validation criteria to be deemed eligible
for participation. Students had to meet the DSM-IV criteria for a Learning Disorder, demon-
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 59
strating a significant discrepancy between measured intellectual functioning and actual aca-
demic achievement in someone of least average intelligence and the criteria subsequently
adopted by the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (2002), as part of its new defini-
tion of LD. These criteria demanded clear-cut evidence that any noted academic discrepancy
was logically related to measurable deficits in underlying psychological processes (e.g.,
memory, phonological processing, or processing speed). Students interested in participating
were asked to present themselves to their institution’s Disability Services Office to meet with
a pilot staff member. The nature of the project, including the fact that their participation in
certain activities and programs was mandatory, was described. Students were also informed
of the research nature of the LOTF project. After being given an opportunity to have any
questions answered, students were asked to consent to participate in the research portion of
the LOTF project.
All pilot project students participated in program-specific components during at least
their first year of study including specific workshops and one-on-one tutoring delivered
throughout the entire year, geared towards improving awareness of their disability, ability to
self-advocate, and understanding of strategies and technology to compensate for their aca-
demic impairments. While other aspects of each pilot project may have differed between
sites, the nine essential components were included in all of the LOTF pilot projects. Students
were given the option to continue participating in components of relevance after their first
year in the program, but did not have to participate in every component after the initial year.
Further information regarding the LOTF pilot projects may be found in Harrison et al. (2007).
Staff at all pilot projects administered an intake questionnaire to pilot students within 2
to 4 weeks of their having entered the program. Student progress and satisfaction with the
pilot projects were tracked using an exit questionnaire administered when the student left the
program or the project ended. To ensure student anonymity and privacy, no identifying in-
formation was contained in any questionnaires. Questionnaires were numbered according to
the year they were administered, and each envelope was pre-assigned a unique identifier,
with the number corresponding to a database kept by the pilot institution staff. The number-
ing system ensured that the students’ privacy was well protected and that the LOTF did not
receive identifying information about the students. Completed questionnaires were placed in
the envelopes, sealed, and sent to the LOTF office for entry into a specially prepared data-
base, with access limited to the researchers.
Analyses were performed on the mean scores for the dichotomous variables and Bon-
ferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons. All statistical test results showing
significance level at or below .05 are reported but only those comparisons with alpha less
than .01 are considered significant.
Measures
When exiting the program, students were asked to report reasons for leaving and aca-
demic status, as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the program. Disability Services staff
members were asked to complete a proxy exit questionnaire for those initial study partici-
pants who did not complete the questionnaire on their own, providing general information
about these students. Of those who completed both the intake and exit questionnaires, three
questions pertained to students’ understanding of their LDs. Students’ responses to these
questions were the dependent variables in the study. These questions asked students about
understanding of their LDs (“How good is your understanding of your learning disabili-
ties?”), ability to explain their LDs to others (“How well can you explain your learning
disabilities to other people?”), and ability to advocate for accommodations (“How well can
you advocate for the accommodations that you require in order to cope with or compensate
for your learning disabilities?”). These items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
Harrison et al.
60 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Students were also asked to identify the specific type of
LD they believed they had, but since their perceptions could not be verified objectively these
data are not reported.
Students were also asked to rate the extent to which the LOTF pilot program had con-
tributed to their academic success using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(significantly). They were asked a yes/no question regarding whether they would recommend
this program to a friend and whether or not they would participate in such a program again.
Open-ended questions regarding current course marks were asked. Questions in both the in-
person and proxy questionnaires asked about student educational status (graduated, left pro-
gram, left school), and their reasons for leaving the program if they had not graduated.
Results
Academic Success
Of those who completed the exit survey, 82.9% of respondents stated that the pilot pro-
ject had contributed significantly to their academic success, 5.4% said it had contributed
somewhat to their success, and 11.7% gave no response. In addition, 99.5% said they would
recommend participation in such LD-specific support programs to a friend and an equivalent
number stated that they would participate again in such a support program. When asked about
academic achievement, 53% of respondents had received marks in the A to B range in their
courses with only 7% reporting marks below a C.
Status at Time of Departure from LOTF Program
Data regarding 845 students (395 proxy questionnaires and 450 actual respondents)
were available to identify academic status at the time of exiting the LOTF program. As
shown in Figures 1–3, no students in the university-based programs had dropped out of
school, although a proportion were counselled to leave the program or transferred to another
institution. Personal, medical, or financial reasons or getting a job were cited for their depar-
ture from the LOTF program. Of all college participants, 10.7% had dropped out of college;
significantly more of these students had a proxy questionnaire completed on their behalf (20
people or 5.6% of college respondents had dropped out compared with 42 proxy respondents
or 18.4%, likelihood ratio = 27.5, p < .001). These figures are still much lower than the na-
tional drop-out rate in Canadian postsecondary institutions during this same time period (16%
university, 25% college dropout rate reported by Statistics Canada in 1999; Shaienks,
Gluszynski, & Bayard, 2008). Overall, almost half of the respondents from both colleges and
universities completed the survey because they were graduating, and an additional 31.2%
planned to continue studying either at their current institution or somewhere else despite exit-
ing the program.
For those questionnaires that endorsed reason for leaving the LOTF program as being
“because the pilot project ended,” there was no difference in the amount of time students had
spent in the LOTF program between proxy and self-report. Most of the college students in
this situation had completed 1 or 2 years of study (53.6% and 36.4%, respectively). Of the 9
university students who left the LOTF program because the pilot ended, most had completed
3 years of their academic program (55.6%); the rest completed either 2 or 4 years (22.2%
each). Further, only 3 students who left because the pilot ended had participated in the LOTF
program for less than a full academic year.
When asked to rate the extent to which their LD affected certain aspects of their daily
life, almost all participants agreed that academic functioning was affected, with university
students endorsing this to a greater extent than those in college, F(1, 448) = 19.2, p < .001.
As shown in Table 1, their belief that LD affected academic performance did not diminish
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 61
Harrison et al.
62 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
Changes from Entry to Exit
Data comparing entry and exit questionnaire responses were not available for the
proxy students; as such, the remaining analyses pertain to the 450 students who answered the
questionnaires. Responses were combined for all LOTF projects except where significant dif-
ferences were identified between college and university. No differences were found between
the responses provided by male and female students. Data from all students who completed
the intake questionnaire only are provided for comparison purposes.
following participation in the LOTF programs, with almost all students endorsing this ques-
tion. In fact, as shown on Table 1, university students endorsed this aspect to a greater extent
following participation in these programs, although this change was only marginally signifi-
cant. After participating in these programs, a significantly greater number of university
students gained awareness of the effects of their LD on their lives both socially and at work.
College students decreased their endorsement on the effect of their LD on their self-esteem
after the program, whereas university students did not (see Table 1).
Table 2 shows the changes in students’ perception of their understanding of their LD
before and after program participation. Results from a repeated-measures ANOVA identified
that students report a significant improvement in their ability to (a) understand their own LD;
(b) explain their LD to others; and (c) advocate for themselves. Further, as shown in Table 2,
the majority of students left the LOTF program rating their skills in these areas as being good
or very good. College and university participants both demonstrated significant improve-
ments in these areas, whereas fewer than half of the respondents held these opinions at the
start of the LOTF program.
Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the effects of participation in intensive and
LD-specific postsecondary education and learning support programs and to gain greater
awareness of the postsecondary outcomes of students with LD. Using survey data, we exam-
ined the success of providing students with an updated psychoeducational assessment
identifying their learning strengths and weaknesses; self-advocacy training; individualized
coaching to improve their self-awareness of their disability; specialized study and learning
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 63
strategies support; and instruction and support in the proper use of assistive technology where
appropriate.
Overall, it appears that the majority of respondents felt the program contributed signifi-
cantly to their academic success. Most respondents reported receiving academic marks that
were above average, with very few receiving grades below a C. This finding suggests that
educational and learning supports provided to these students may have allowed them to ex-
perience success in their chosen academic programs.
Table 1
The Percentage of Students Endorsing Items Reflecting their Perception of the Impact of their
Learning Disability on Daily Living Before and After Completing the LOTF Program
All
respondents
Students completing
both surveys
Aspect affected by LD Before Before After 98% CI
College students
n = 881 n = 365 Academic learning and education 82.0 84.7 81.1 -.098, .027 Social relationships, such as getting along with family or
friends 18.8 20.3 21.4 -.044, .066
Day to day life skills, such as banking, managing home 16.0 15.1 19.2 -.016, .099 Employment, such as getting and keeping a job 18.6 18.9 20.8 -.036, .074 Self-esteem 48.2 51.5 43.8 -.143, -.010** Other 5.6 5.4 6.8 -.025, .053 Don’t know 6.7 4.4 3.0 -.047, .020
University students n = 228 n = 85 Academic learning and education 93.0 94.1 98.8 -.008, .102* Social relationships, such as getting along with family or
friends 14.9 10.6 28.2 .063, .290**
Day to day life skills, such as banking, managing home 14.0 11.8 22.4 -.013, .225 Employment, such as getting and keeping a job 7.9 9.4 18.8 .000, .188* Self-esteem 42.5 40.0 47.1 -.066, .207 Other 5.7 3.5 3.5 -.056, .056 Don’t know 2.2 1.2 2.4 -.037, .060 Note. CI = confidence interval of the difference between proportions. *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 2
Self Reported Rating of Students’ Perception of their LD
Before and After Completing the LOTF Program
Mean ratings
a and statistical tests (N = 450)
% rating their skills as good or very good
Before
After 95% CI
Before After
n M SD M SD
Understanding your LD 421 2.54 1.0 2.00 0.8 .430, .639 48.9 87.4 Ability to explain your LD 418 2.87 1.1 2.40 1.0 .364, .592 39.7 78.0 Ability to advocate for your accommodations
406 2.61 1.1
2.24 1.0 .238, .501
46.4 81.6
Note. CI = confidence interval of the difference between means. aLower scores represent a more positive rating.
p < .001 for all before/after comparisons.
Harrison et al.
64 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
Graduation and drop-out rates were available for almost all students who had com-
pleted the intake questionnaire. The drop-out rate of students in the LOTF programs was
substantially lower than the rate reported for college and university students in general
(Shaienks, Gluszynski, & Bayard, 2008). Even those for whom proxy data were provided ap-
pear to have had a drop-out rate lower than the national average. This finding speaks to the
possible beneficial effects of participation in an intensive and LD-specific program during at
least the first year of postsecondary study, and highlights the need for such programs to be
available at all institutions. While one could argue that the exit-survey responses were biased
towards those students who had graduated and were successful, the proxy data demonstrate
that this possibility does not fully explain the findings. Indeed, no university student in the
LOTF program dropped out. While more proxy students had dropped out of college com-
pared to respondents, they still appear to have left school at a rate lower than the average for
most non-disabled students. It also appears that more of the proxy students had not graduated
but were continuing on at their institution because the pilot project had ended.
We know that LDs are lifelong, neurologically-based disorders that affect functioning
not only in school, but also in many other activities of daily life (Learning Disabilities Asso-
ciation of Ontario, 2002). As such, it was not surprising to find that the majority of
participants not only identify that LD affects them academically, but also that this did not
change as a result of the program. In other words, these students identify that their academic
functioning is impacted by their LD. What the results do indicate, however, is that with spe-
cific training and support these students were still able to be successful academically and that
fewer than average students had to drop out of their program due to academic failure.
Of interest was also the fact that participation in these programs seems to have in-
creased awareness of students with respect to other aspects of their lives in which their LD
had some influence. For instance, they became more aware of the impact that their LD had on
social and interpersonal functioning. Similarly, students at college report a greater awareness
of the extent to which their LD interfered with general life skills. While it is possible that
simply participating in college-level courses might bring about this understanding, it may
also be the case that specific interactions and teaching offered in the LOTF program, includ-
ing their up-to-date assessment, helped these students better understand the aspects of their
lives that were affected by their specific processing impairments.
The findings of the study also suggest that students’ LDs continued to substantially af-
fect their self-esteem, although fewer of the college students felt this way at the end of the
program relative to when they began. Given the findings of Saracoglu et al. (1989) showing
that lower self-esteem is associated with lower self-efficacy and less successful adjustment at
university, this finding underlines the need to improve self-esteem of students with LD start-
ing in the younger grades. A substantial body of research demonstrates that students with LD
generally tend to report lower self-esteem than their peers without LD (e.g., Conley, Gha-
vami, VonOhlen, & Foulkes, 2007; Gans, Kenny, & Ghany, 2003). The fact that a large
proportion of the LOTF participants (44% of college and 47% of university participants) con-
tinue to feel that their LD affects their self-esteem despite their reported academic success
speaks to the need for continued attention to self-esteem issues among individuals with LDs.
The results of the study further indicate that participation in the LOTF programs not
only improved students’ reported ability to explain their own LD to others, but also improved
their ability to advocate for their own accommodations. Unfortunately, self-advocacy skills
are not explicitly taught in most high schools (Merchant & Gajar, 1997). Therefore, high
school teachers, guidance personnel, and parents may need to play a crucial role in teaching
self-advocacy skills to students with LD prior to making the transition to college or univer-
sity. Teaching a variety of academic and self-advocacy skills may not only promote success
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 65
in postsecondary settings for students with LD, but also foster independence among students
with LD (Brinckerhoff, 1994; Merchant & Gajar, 1997).
In conclusion, because students with LD reach postsecondary settings at a significantly
lower rate than their counterparts without LD (Wagner et al., 2005), transition planning and
programs may help students with LD in transitioning successfully from high school to post-
secondary education. Thus the findings of the present study underscore the importance of
effective transition plans and programs for promoting academic and occupational success
among students with LD. “Making informed choices and communicating one’s needs suc-
cinctly can be particularly difficult for students with LD, but with these critical skills, the
transition from high school to college will be easier” (Brinckerhoff, 1994, p. 237).
Limitations and Future Directions
Although the current study utilized the largest sample of well-validated students with
LDs ever surveyed, it is necessary to identify the limitations that may affect the generaliza-
tion of the current findings. First, the demographics of the current sample may not be
representative of the usual population of students with LD. The ratio of women to men, for
example, in the current sample, was almost equal, whereas numerous studies (e.g., Flannery,
Liederman, Daly, & Schultz, 2000; Rutter et al., 2004) have shown that identified rates of LD
such as reading disabilities is higher in boys than girls (however, see Shaywitz, Shaywitz,
Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990, for an alternate explanation for this uneven sex distribution).
Given, however, that more women than men are attending postsecondary institutions in gen-
eral (Statistics Canada, 2009), this finding may simply reflect the female bias present at
college and university in general.
A second limitation is the fact that not all respondents were at the same stage academi-
cally when they completed the exit questionnaire. Some were completing a 2-year program
whereas others a 4-year university program. Additionally, some completed the survey when
they were dropping out of school or leaving the LOTF program, and finally a few completed
it in the midst of their studies but when the LOTF program ended. As such, one could argue
that it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our data. However, all but three participants
had completed the first year of the program where the nine essential components were consis-
tently delivered and when the program was likely to have its greatest impact.
Another major limitation of the current report was that almost all of the data gathered
relied on self-reported and subjective opinions covering past and present experiences and ef-
fects of the LOTF program. Although self-report bias is unavoidable when asking students to
rate such items, this method of data collection was the only feasible method of gathering im-
portant information on LD students’ academic experiences. As well, the pilot staff
emphasized to students to report their experiences as best they remembered them and stressed
the fact that their responses would not affect their participation in the study or affect their op-
portunities to receive academic support through the pilot project itself. While students
provided us with subjective opinions regarding their actual abilities, we have no triangulation
of their perceptions. Finally, it is possible that over time and without the LOTF programs
these students might have enjoyed similar outcomes.
However, despite these limitations, it is believed that the large sample size and strict
eligibility criteria makes this sample a very good representation of LD students in postsec-
ondary institutions from 1998–2002, and presents a wealth of information that can be applied
to other groups of learning disabled students in the country.
Based on the information outlined in the present study, the Ministry of Training, Col-
leges and Universities of Ontario recognized the need for postsecondary students to have
access to appropriate diagnostic assessments, learning and assistive technology training and
support, and transition services in order to reach their full potential at the postsecondary level.
Harrison et al.
66 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
In an effort to enhance the number of proper assessments being provided to students through-
out their schooling, the LOTF recommended the government of Ontario develop a number of
projects, including provincially funded, not-for-profit Assessment Centres. The purpose of
these centres was to provide adults with access to affordable and comprehensive psycho-
educational assessments, as well as on-site follow-up care and services such as adaptive tech-
nology training, learning strategies tutoring, and guidance for the transition to postsecondary
learning. Although these programs represent the beginning of a growing trend of services that
are becoming available, research into the effectiveness of various transition and assistive pro-
grams will also play a key role in advancing the education of students with LD.
Moreover, these findings prompted the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
to invest in providing every publically funded college and university in Ontario with two new
staff positions: a Learning Strategist and an Assistive Technologies Specialist, through an
enhanced services fund (Nichols, 2004). These positions were developed and funded as a di-
rect result of the feedback provided by students in the LOTF pilot projects who identified
these services as being key to their academic success. Given that the majority of high school
students with LD generally enter postsecondary settings without much knowledge of their
LDs and how such disabilities affect their academic learning (Saracolu et al., 1989; Skinner
& Lindstrom, 2003), every college and university in Ontario now has funding to provide a
transition-to-postsecondary program for students with LD. While these are typically brief
programs delivered just before the start of the academic year, they provide students with LD
the opportunity to obtain additional information and support when making the transition to
postsecondary education.
The research data gathered by the LOTF have continued to inform the provision of
postsecondary educational supports to students with LD in Ontario and has had an impact in
other provinces in Canada as well as elsewhere. It is the authors’ hope that this report will
result in some improvements in the way students with LD are supported, given that we now
know what they need and how they can be helped to achieve their potential.
References
Black, R. A., Smith, G., Chang, C., Harding, T., & Stodden, R. A. (2002). Provision of educational sup-ports to students with disabilities in two-year postsecondary programs. Journal for Vocational
Special Needs Education, 24, 3–17. Retrieved from http://www.cew.wisc.edu/jvsne/ Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1994). Developing effective self-advocacy skills in college-bound students with learn-
ing disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 229–237. doi:10.1177 /105345129402900407
Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1996). Making the transition to higher education: Opportunities for student empow-erment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 118–136. doi:10.1177/002221949602900202
Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for
students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodations, and inde-
pendence for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 417–429. doi:10.1177/002221949202500702
Bryan, T., & Burnstein, K. (2004). Improving homework completion and academic performance: Lessons
from special education. Theory into Practice, 43, 213–219. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4303_7 Butler, D. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 170–190. doi:10.1177/002221949502800306
College Committee on Disability Issues. (2004). CCDI submission to the Postsecondary Review. Retrieved from http://www.disabilityissues.ca/english/link_doc/review_docs/Rae_Review_submission_for _CCDI_final.doc
Conley, T. D., Ghavami, N., VonOhlen, J., & Foulkes, P. (2007). General and domain-specific self-esteem among regular education and special education students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,
775–789. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00185.x
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 67
DaDeppo, L. M. W. (2009). Integration factors related to the academic success and intent to persist of col-lege students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 122–131.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00286.x Ellis, E. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content area subjects to
adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(6), 358–383. doi:10
.1177/002221949302600602 Flannery, K. A., Liederman, J., Daly, L., & Schultz, J. (2000). Male prevalence for reading disability is
found in a large sample of black and white children free from ascertainment bias. Journal of the In-ternational Neuropsychological Society, 6(4), 433–442. doi:10.1017/S1355617700644016
Gans, A. M., Kenny, M. C., & Ghany, D. L. (2003). Comparing the self-concept of students with and
without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 287–294. doi:10.1177 /002221940303600307
Gerber, P. (1998). Characteristics of adults with specific learning disabilities. In B. K. Lenz, N. A. Sturom-
ski, & M. A. Corley (Eds.), Serving adults with learning disabilities: Implications for effective practice (n.p.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Life success for children with learning disabilities: A parent guide. Pasadena, CA: Frostig Centre.
Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and underprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabili-
ties Research and Practice, 22, 219–228. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00250.x Harrison, A. G., Larochette, A. C., & Nichols, E. (2007). Students with learning disabilities in postsecond-
ary education: Selected initial characteristics. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17, 135–154.
Harrison, A. G., & Wolforth, J. (2006). Results from a national survey of disability service providers in the Canadian postsecondary system. Unpublished manuscript.
Heiman, T., & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Academic strate-gies profile. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 248–258. doi:10.1177 /002221940303600304
Hitchings, W. E., Kophamer Johnson, K., Luzzo, D. A., Retish, P., Hinz, C., & Hake, J. (2010). Identifying
the career development needs of community college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 18(1), 22–29. Retrieved from http://www.ncccrp.org/page.asp?page=981
Hitchings, W. E., Luzzo, D. A., Ristow, R., Horvath, M., Retish, P., & Tanners, A. (2001). The career de-velopment needs of college students with learning disabilities: In their own words. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 8–17. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00002
Howard, D. E., Schiraldi, G., Pineda, A., & Campanella, R. (2006). Stress and mental health among col-lege students: Overview and promising prevention interventions. In M. V. Landow (Ed.), Stress and
mental health of college students (pp. 91–123). New York, NY: Nova Science. Kovach, K., & Wilgosh, L. R. (1999). Learning and study strategies and performance anxiety in postsec-
ondary students with learning disabilities: A preliminary study. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin,
27(1), 47–57. Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (2002). Official definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved
from http://www.ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp.
Lock, R. H., & Layton, C. A. (2001). Succeeding in postsecondary education through self-advocacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 66–71. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tec/
Mangrum, C. T., & Strichart, S. S. (1988). College and the learning disabled student. Philadelphia, PA: Grune & Stratton.
Martin, M. M., Cayanus, J. L., Weber, K., & Goodboy, A. K. (2006). College students’ stress and its im-
pact on their motivation and communication with their instructors. In M. V. Landow (Ed.), Stress and mental health of college students (pp. 149–169). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Mellard, D. F., & Hazel, J. S. (1992). Social competencies as a pathway to successful life transitions.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15, 251–271. doi:10.2307/1511317 Merchant, D., & Gajar, A. (1997). A review of the literature on self advocacy components in transition
programs for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 223–231.
doi:10.1016/S1052-2263(97)00005-6 Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., & Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabili-
ties: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97–118. Retrieved from http://journals .cec.sped.org/ec/
Harrison et al.
68 Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 15, 119–127. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1503_1 Nichols, E. (2004). Executive summary of the report on the implementation and evaluation of the pilot
enhanced services (ESF) projects at Ontario’s publicly funded colleges and universities. Retrieved
from http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/9000/248873.pdf Nichols, E., Harrison, A., McCloskey, L., & Weintraub, L. (2002). Learning Opportunities Task Force
1997–2002: Final report. Richmond Hill, ON: Learning Opportunities Task Force. Price, L. A., Gerber, P. J., & Shessel, I. (2002). Adults with learning disabilities and employment: A Cana-
dian perspective. Thalamus: The Journal of the International Academy for Research in Learning
Disabilities, 20, 29–40. Retrieved from http://www.iarld.com/?page_id=39 Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L. (1999). Patterns of change and predic-
tors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: Results from a twenty-year longitudinal
study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 35–49. doi:10.1207 /sldrp1401_4 Rath, K., & Royer, J. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college stu-
dents. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353–381. doi:10.1023/A:1020694510935 Rutter, M., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., Moffitt, T. E.,...Carroll, J. (2004).
Sex differences in developmental reading disability: New findings from 4 epidemiological studies.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(16), 2007–2012. doi:10.1001/jama.291.16.2007 Saracoglu, B., Minden, H., & Wilchesky, M. (1989). The adjustment of students with learning disabilities
to university and its relationship to self-esteem and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
22(9), 590–592. doi:10.1177/002221948902200913 Shaienks, D., Gluszynski, T., & Bayard, J. (2008, November). Postsecondary education – participation
and dropping out: Differences across university, college and other types of postsecondary institu-tions (Publication No. 81-595-M). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595m/2008070 /6000001-eng.htm
Sharpe, M. N., & Johnson, D. R. (2001). A 20/20 analysis of postsecondary support characteristics. Jour-nal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 169–177.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disabil-
ity in boys and girls. Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(8), 998–1002. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036
Sitlington, P. L., & Payne, E. M. (2004). Information needed by postsecondary education: Can we provide
it as part of the transition assessment process? Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.ldworldwide.org/research/learning-disabilities-a-contemporary-
journal Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college: Strategies
for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 47,
132–137. doi:10.1080/10459880309604441 Smith, J. J., & Young, K. (2004). Issues in transition from school to postsecondary education: Focus on
students with learning disabilities. In E. M. Levinson (Ed.), Transition from school to post-school
life for individuals with disabilities: Assessment from an educational and school psychological per-spective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Smith, S. G., English, R., & Vasek, D. (2002). Student and parent involvement in the transition process for college freshmen with learning disabilities. College Student Journal, 36, 491–503.
Statistics Canada. (2007). Participation and activity limitation survey 2006: Technical and methodological
report. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English /071203/d071203a.htm Statistics Canada. (2009). Postsecondary enrollment and graduation. Retrieved from http://www.statcan
.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2009003-eng.htm
Stodden, R. A., & Jones, M. A. (2002, March). Services, supports, and accommodations for individuals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary education, and employ-ment. Paper presented at National Capacity Building Institute, Honolulu, HI.
Stodden, R. A., Jones, M. A., & Chang, K. B. T. (2002). Services, supports and accommodations for indi-viduals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary education, and
employment. Unpublished manuscript, Honolulu, HI. Troiano, P. F., Liefeld, J. A., & Trachtenberg, J. V. (2010). Academic support and college success for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2),
35–44. Retrieved from http://www.crla.net/journal.htm
Students with Learning Disabilities
Exceptionality Education International, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1 69
Vaidya, S. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for students with learning disabilities. Education, 120(1), 186–189, 81.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Ward, L., Mallet, R., Heslop, P., & Simons, K. (2003). Transition planning: How well does it work for
young people with learning disabilities and their families. British Journal of Special Education, 30, 132–137. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00298
Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., & Mason, C. (2004). Self-determination and student in-volvement in standards-based reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 413–425. doi:10.1177 /10983007040060010501
Young, G., & Browning, J. (2005). Learning disabilities/dyslexia and employment–A mythical view. In G. Reed & A. Fawcett (Eds.), Dyslexia in context: Research, policy and practice (pp. 25–59). London, England: Whurr Publisher.
Authors’ Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Allyson Harrison, Re-
gional Assessment and Resource Centre, Queen’s University, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, B100,
68 University Avenue, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6. E-mail: [email protected]
The authors would like to thank Dr. Irene Armstrong for her assistance in editing and revising
this manuscript. Funding for this research was generously provided by the Ontario Ministry
of Training, Colleges and Universities.